Luxury Jet Ski Rentals, LLC v. Masserat

Luxury Jet Ski Rentals · United States District Court for the Southern District of California · April 21, 2025 · No. 3:25-cv-00557-JAH-BLM

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California grants Luxury Jet Ski Rentals LLC’s ex parte application in a limitation-of-liability action arising from a September 2024 personal watercraft incident. The court approves the stipulation for vessel value and letter of undertaking, restrains related proceedings, and directs issuance, publication, and service of a monition requiring claims and answers by June 20, 2025.

Holdings

  1. The complaint satisfied Supplemental Admiralty Rule F(2) because it was timely filed and adequately described the vessel, ownership, voyage and incident, resulting demand or injury, and the absence of other pending proceedings.
  2. The stipulation for an approximate vessel value of $11,000, together with Markel American Insurance Company's $11,500 letter of undertaking, constituted adequate security under the Limitation of Liability Act, Supplemental Admiralty Rule F(1), and the local rule requiring $500 in security for costs.
  3. Because the complaint was properly filed and adequate security was provided, the plaintiff-in-limitation was entitled to an injunction staying the commencement or further prosecution of related actions concerning the September 2024 incident, except in the present limitation action.
  4. The court directed issuance of a monition requiring all persons with claims arising from the incident to file claims and any answer by June 20, 2025, and required publication of notice for four successive weeks and mailing to known claimants by the second publication.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the complaint satisfied Supplemental Admiralty Rule F(2)'s requirements for an action seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability.
  2. Whether the stipulation for the vessel's value and letter of undertaking provided adequate security under the Limitation of Liability Act, Supplemental Admiralty Rule F(1), and the Southern District of California's local rules.
  3. Whether the court should enjoin related proceedings and issue a monition requiring potential claimants to file claims and answers.
  4. What publication and mailing procedures were required for notice to potential claimants.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (11)

  • Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438, 446-47 (2001)(followed)
  • Anderson v. Nadon, 360 F.2d 53, 57 (9th Cir. 1966)(followed)
  • In re Complaint of Ross Island Sand & Gravel, 226 F.3d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
  • Matter of Willamette Jet Boat Excursions, LLC, 638 F. Supp. 3d 1209, 1211-12 (D. Or. 2022)(followed)
  • In re Star & Crescent Boat Co., 519 F. Supp. 3d 752, 758 (S.D. Cal. 2021)(followed)
  • Complaint of Dammers & Vanderheide & Scheepvaart Maats Christina B.V., 836 F.2d 750, 755 (2d Cir. 1988)(followed)
  • Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. of Hartford v. S. Pac. Co., 273 U.S. 207, 218-19 (1927)(followed)
  • The Palmyra, 25 U.S. 1, 10 (1827)(followed)
  • In re Oceansound Investments, 705 F. Supp. 3d 1110, 1116 (S.D. Cal. 2023)(followed)
  • Esta Later Charters, Inc. v. Ignacio, 875 F.2d 234, 236 (9th Cir. 1989)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 11.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…